Blogroll

Quotes

Disclaimer: The content on this website may be outdated by the 3rd & final proposal on 20/11/2013

The Quotes below are intended to stimulate debate and provoke thought about the .UK consultation.
Individuals may have been quoted out of context, and it is recommended to read the full source where available.

3rd Nominet .uk final decision quotes:

“As a charity we are very disappointed by this move from Nominet. By introducing this new capability it is clear that they are not taking into consideration the issues that some charities will have when it comes to domain squatters. We would like to see an exemption created for charities and for Nominet to provide more support to charities affected by this change.”

“Charities where there is no .co.uk equivalent, or where they own them as well, can take up the .uk equivalent from 10 June. For the majority (53%) of those with .org.uk registrations, including many of the largest charities in the UK, this will be an option. In the meantime, .org.uk registration carries on as normal. There is no need to wait for any period of time to progress your domain name strategy”.

“The restrictions on .uk domain names could impede Mind’s ability to expand its reach, to provide vital mental health information to those who need it the most. We have worked incredibly hard in recent years to grow Mind’s online presence, developing outstanding resources which are a lifeline for many. It is disappointing to learn that we might be prevented from continuing on this trajectory in coming years”.

“Nominet’s consultation makes an extraordinary attempt to argue that it needs more cash because it operates in the public interest, so more cash means more public interest activities for the public. This is the standard argument for a tax, not a new round of domain registrations. Nominet are not entitled to make such a tautologous argument, their public purpose is to provide a secure and trusted domain registry service”.

“Although the BBC does not hold strong views either way as to whether the provision of a .uk domain name service is a good idea or is one which will benefit businesses or consumers in the UK, we are concerned about the additional costs to brand owners and to SMEs involved in having to acquire additional second level domains, solely for brand protection purposes. The costs of brand protection in relation to the new ICANN gTLD programme are already due to increase exponentially and while the direct.uk proposal is different in scope and scale to ICANN’s programme. It is of grave concern that brand owners in the UK may have to fund yet more brand protection activity in relation to direct.uk. On balance, therefore, the BBC believes this is not the right time to introduce direct.uk and reserves its position as to whether such a programme should be introduced in the future”.

“In terms of specific security issues, we are concerned that the addition of second level .uk domains could result in confusion, and potentially lead to security incidents. For example, the possibility of two separate organisations having the same domain but at different levels – which could confuse individuals and result in wrongly directed email, for example. Depending on the type of organisations involved, such a disclosure could result in financial or sensitive information being wrongly disclosed”.

Nominet’s new proposal on giving priority for new domains is also likely to create confusion. Although the basic idea seems simple and fair – that the person who has held a third level .uk domain for longest should have first refusal on the matching second-level domain – it will not be applied consistently. The ‘first refusal’ policy only applies to the second level hierarchies managed by Nominet (.co.uk, .org.uk, .me.uk, .ltd.uk, .plc.uk and .net.uk; the consultation paper also lists .sch.uk, but at a round-table it was suggested that in fact there are no registrants at third level in that hierarchy). It appears that no priority will be given to registrants in .ac.uk, .nhs.uk, police.uk, etc., despite Nominet’s argument that the ‘first refusal’ policy rewards loyalty to the .uk domain.

Although there are some welcome modifications to the original proposal round we responded to in January these are not sufficient to change the chapter’s recommendation NOT to proceed with direct registrations under .uk. The proposal even where amended does not sufficiently define needs or present market information to make an informed decision. There is concern that the perspectives of key stakeholders has not been engaged in an authoritative way to establish this information. The impact on .uk registrants and users would therefore be speculative.

“Nominet’s initial consultation document only told side one of the story; it presented the advantages of opening registrations at the second level without putting forward any of the disadvantages. It is therefore completely unsurprising that it found favour with some respondents particularly those unfamiliar with domain names who would not be able to intuit the disadvantages themselves, rather like a politician asking voters whether they would like lower taxes without pointing out the consequences. The second consultation is little better – nowhere does it set out the disadvantages of the proposal as a whole to existing registrants.”?

Now, let’s have a look at Nominet. It’s first consultation on direct.uk did not publish a single consultation response. It still hasn’t. Its round tables are not transcribed, neither are the proceedings of stakeholders. I can’t even find a copy of the first Direct.uk proposal (2012) on Nominet’s site. Nominet provided a summary of the first consultation responses, and was congratulated by its Board for running such an excellent consultation. Really? How can an outsider understand whether the summary fairly reflects the inputs and nuances of consultation responses?

Our consultation is not a vehicle for us to put forward a business case. The consultation is an opportunity to gather views on what we have put forward; the Board will consider those views, any suggestions for doing things differently, along with research and data based on the most likely final proposal.

Nominet had revenue of £25,200,000 in 2012. Even a very conservative scenario for .uk, where only half of existing domain owners take up the option of a .uk name, would see Nominet make the same again from the launch. And if .uk gains a bit more traction, they could be making over £40,000,000 a year (every year) extra. That’s money coming directly out of the pockets of businesses.

For the .uk proposal Nominet have a very short list of domains that will not be created (the main ones being the headaching uk.uk and com.uk). A number of .gov.uk domains which will not be moving to www.gov.uk (e.g. royal.gov.uk) will also have their second-level equivalents reserved. In our response to the original proposal I pointed out the risk of confusion if parallel hierarchies could be created, especially as these would not be covered by the normal dispute resolution processes. So as well as .com.uk I’d also see .edu.uk, .limited.uk and several others as more likely to do harm than good.

You have got to buy your .uk. It’s not like info and biz or even .net if you own a .com. You have to have the .uk or someone else will register it and it’s in the identical namespace. How can Nominet justify blackmailing something like 7,000,000 entities to spend up to £20 per year on an unnecessary domain which will create an income stream of up to £50,000,000 per year for themselves, with no suggested benefit for the customer. Let’s just reiterate, up to £50,000,000 per year.

As mentioned, if nominet go ahead and release .uk as is, there’s going to be thousands of cases where people get .uk domains related to businesses, government departments and local authorities, which is going to cause MAJOR problems in future when these departments and businesses realise what they have missed out on and didnt realise because nominet never told them. Once nominet have sold the “.UK” for any domain, there will be no taking them back.

so the way I read it a business/individual may spend 6 months sweating it out – constantly looking to see if an older .me.uk or .org.uk has taken the prime domain. I doubt that Mrs Cowley and the rest of nominet’s executive team would want to suffer a similar situation of uncertainty in their own lives.

Nominet auctioned off one and two letter domains under its various second levels
at about the same time. But the registration dates differ. And .me.uk domains
are often times the first registered.

1st Nominet .uk Consultation Quotes

Specifically, in our response to Nominet, we too have made a clear statement that we remain uncomfortable with the current path that the consultation offers for existing third level .uk registrants to be afforded their rights for a second level
“direct” uk domain.
(Tim Beresford – Heart Internet Ltd (Host Europe Group) – in response to concerned customer 04/02/13)

With trademark holders given priority, current domains would not be guaranteed a corresponding .uk format. This could cause both damage and confusion, especially where branding costs are concerned. Giving existing domain owner’s priority would ensure consistency and thus instil greater confidence. Many UK businesses have no registered copyright and Companies House would perhaps be better reference point. Allowing applicants to bid for a domain could put SMEs at a disadvantage and create additional costs for UK businesses. Deciding competing claims on the basis of longevity is an option.
(The Chartered Institute for IT (BCS) – Response to: New .uk domain name service 02/01/13)

My main concern is that there is no apparent or perceived need for direct.uk and that the only benefit of having it is to increase the revenue stream for Nominet. This is not true to the spirit in which we founded Nominet (I am one of the original signatory directors).
(Nigel Titley in response to ISOC .uk statement 08/01/13)

I find myself in complete agreement with Alex Bligh that the current proposals should be dropped, and some fresh pairs of eyes applied to the fundamental question of whether .uk can indeed be deployed in a useful way. I believe this will be possible but any such proposal needs a more thought-through plan for deployment………………Back to the drawing board please.
(Steve Dyer, Nominet Member Forum (login required) 06/01/12)

You are in effect conceding and openly acknowledging that the regime which applies to some or all of the other uk domains – for example .co.uk and .org.uk – is open to the very forms of abuse which the .uk counter measures are designed to prevent
(John Carr OBE, The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety 04/01/13)

Nominet has mixed it up with so much other stuff in a rather misguided attempt to improve internet security that this probably counts as one of their sillier ideas. In their current form, my view is that the proposals are seriously flawed.
(Alex Bligh blog.alex.org.uk 04/01/13)

A little tiny bit more safety (like Nominet’s current proposal) will make everyone LESS safe because the relaxation in user attentiveness and self-policing will outweigh any security gains from the figleaf of security Nominet is proposing
(Edwin Hayward of MyDomainNames.co.uk, 14/11/2012)

I plan to blog again when I have got my head round the current state of responses, including the suggestions for reconciling and addressing the differences between those who genuinely wish to have a domain name system that serves the interests of society as a whole and gives a fair reward to registrars who verify the domain names to those who want us to trust them, give true anonymity to those who want it, and enable the rest of us to tell which is which.
(Philip Virgo in I have seen the online future – and it sucks: the time has come for customer revolt , 09/11/2012)

The proposed security provides no actual security for the consumer. Worse, the consumer is being defrauded into thinking things will more secure when they are not.
(Paul Keating in response to Philip Virgo, see above, 10/11/2012)

The auction of .uk sites would preferentially favor trademark holders instead of existing domain holders, thereby representing an unprecedented expropriation of domain registrants and website of whom most do not own the trademark for their domain name.
(Domainindex.com Downgrades Internet TLD .co.uk, 12/11/2012)

In the current proposals, the current .co.uk owner of any given domain name DO NOT HAVE AUTOMATIC RIGHTS to the .uk equivalent of their .co.uk domain name which they have spent years and countless money marketing and building up their brand and website, only to be shafted by the very people who are supposed to be looking after them.
(Frank Paul in If your business operates from a .co.uk domain name, you should be VERY worried !, 30/10/2012)

Disclaimer

Please note the content on this website may have been written before the final version of the release rules by Nominet. There were two consultations in October 2012 & July 2013 and the final version was published in November 2013. Dot uk was launched on 10th June 2014 and the official current .UK rules can be found here: www.dotuklaunch.co.uk